DDG 1000 destroyer program facing major cuts

[unhappycamper]

Source: Navy Times

DDG 1000 destroyer program facing major cuts
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 14, 2008 19:44:05 EDT

Indications are growing that the Navy is poised to forego further construction of the advanced but very expensive DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers and end the program at two ships.

Those first two destroyers were authorized in the 2007 budget, and shipbuilders General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman will begin construction of each ship this summer. A third ship is in the 2009 budget request, and current plans call for a total of seven Zumwalts.

But the price tag for the ships is staggering: $3.3 billion per copy according to Navy planners, over $5 billion and more by outside estimates. Even at the lower price, they would be the most expensive surface combatants ever built. With the Navy’s shipbuilding program considered unaffordable by budget analysts at the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office, eliminating five ships could save as much as $25 billion.

On the record, Navy officials are mum about their plans. Service support for the DDG 1000 program has been lukewarm at best, and while publicly supporting the ships, Navy leaders behind the scenes have worked halt further production.

Read more: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/07/defense_ddg100_071408/

---

Your Deepwater program tax dollars at work.

If you want to read more, go to the Veterans forum and search for

littoral or

LCS or

DDG 1000 or

Zumwalt or

national security cutter

[One_Life_To_Give]

1. Is this the reduced crew DD?

Is this the version that drops the crew complement by like 90%?

Putting all the combat worthiness issues of a heavily automated warship aside. What would 100+ billets cost over the life of the ship?

[unhappycamper]

7. It appears the size of the crew is 40 people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=259&topic_id=9878

[lonestarnot]

13. What is 5 billion divided by 40?

:rofl:

[E-Z-B]

2. "That page has gone AWOL!"

Bad link? Or page taken down?

[unhappycamper]

4. Try this link:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/07/defense_ddg100_071408/

The problem (I think) is dynamic addressing.

If the link above doesn't work, go to the Navy Times --> http://www.navytimes.com/ and you'll see the story.

[floridablue]

3. Is this program named for

Admiral Zumwalt, or his son who died at the result of agent orange?

[unhappycamper]

5. I think it's for the Admiral. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

6. If we don't modernize our military weapons then...

they can't be sold to our enemies or used by them against us.

I bet when we sell military weapons we sell them at discount.

[Vidar]

17. How silly of me! I forgot that was their real function.

[haele]

8. This program has been turned on and off since the first design was approved in 1998.

I was peripherally involved with it back then...
It's a pity, but so much of it is a problem with incompatible, not well thought out design issues, (what I call "stupid technology tricks")too many contractors trying to get big dollars instead of working together, not enough government oversight, and most of all - politics.
There's still this straw-man put out by the Pentagon to the public that somehow, we're still in WWII and contractors are working for the DoD, willing to give up profits to serve their country, rather than senior brass and/or civil servants jockeying for plumb contractor jobs after they stop riding their desks or hang up their birds and stars. Get rid of upper echelon's ability to walk into either lobbying or senior corporate positions for a specified length of time or risk losing their retirement benefits, and that might get these joker's minds back on their jobs rather than their wallets.

With the NeoCons playing a live action "Risk" game using troops on the ground, the Navy won't get the upgrades it needs to be able to keep up even with modern pirates and unethical corporate interests on the seas, not to mention the various "Wars on" that the government throws them into.

The old Spru-cans and Aegis Cruisers are rapidly reaching end of life; light ships that were built 30 - 40 years ago out of aluminum and low weight steel aren't like the old battleships and cruisers that could last 50 to 60 years. If they want the good things (foreign emergency evacuation and services, piracy abatement/transport and container shipping protection, safe "projection of power") the Navy can give the US citizens and interests, then they've got to be serious about upgrading the Navy and making the whole process more cost effective.

And I'm saying this as a retired Chief.

Haele

[blueinindiana]

9. All the Spruances have been decommissioned

Most have been sunk as targets and the first aegis cruiser the non VLA types have been scraped as well.

The FFG-7 have had their missile launchers removed to help serve FFG-7's that where sold to foreign navies.

ex Navy man here as well :)

[Beausoleil]

12. My old Spruance-class

the Elliot (DD-967), was sunk as an artificial reef in 2002. It didn't last 30 years. Nice ship, but glad we never saw action.

[Thothmes]

10. Naval vessels are built of steel

We stopped using aluminium in superstrutures after the lessons learned from the Royal Navy's experience in the Falklands.

[MaineDem]

11. Collins: Navy has not decided to scrap destroyer

PORTLAND, Maine—Despite media reports to the contrary, the Navy has not decided to scrap its newest destroyer after the first two are built, Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday.

A top-level meeting of Navy officials to discuss the fate of the Zumwalt destroyer that was supposed to happen last Thursday has been rescheduled for next week, said Collins, R-Maine.

...

In Maine, it has become a political issue.

Collins, a supporter of the Zumwalt, has said repeatedly that the third Zumwalt is necessary to avoid a drastic workload gap at Bath Iron Works.

Her challenger, Democratic Rep. Tom Allen, is open to building more Arleigh Burke destroyers. A trade publication report that the Navy wants to build up to 11 more of the destroyers would provide "more work and a more stable, uninterrupted workload for Bath Iron Works," he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/07/15/collins_navy_has_not_decided_to_scrap_destroyer/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Maine+news

[Crowman1979]

14. All due to expensive stealth technology!

I think the only weapons platforms that should be stealth are electronic warfare aircraft, submarines and anything to do with spec ops. Try to have all of our weapons systems stealth is gonna send the USA into bankruptcy.

[jmowreader]

15. This program was jinxed from the start...

They named the class after Elmo Zumwalt--the Father of the Nuclear Navy.

Which, of course, explains why there's no reactor on the ship.

This disparity will eventually doom the whole class to failure. (Sailors are a superstitious lot...) You'd think they could have named a submarine or something else nuclear-powered after the admiral.

But seriously...does anyone remember the SmartShip program? Someone decided that controlling an entire warship with Windows NT-based computers was a real fine idea...the guy who made the decision was NOT one of the people who had to go out and recover the USS Ticonderoga the seven or eight times the computers quit working and stranded the ship in the middle of the ocean.

[Crowman1979]

18. They need an emergency kit of old technology.

With a Sextant, maps and Compass handy! :D

[Vidar]

16. Destroyers have been the disposable screeners (defenders) of the larger capital ships.

3.3 billion per ship is far more than the cost of any WWII carrier or battleship, even taking inflation into account.